During the Feb. 6 council meeting, Councilman John Paul Ledesma abruptly asked for a point of personal privilege. Ledesma and Mayor Lance MacLean walked off the dais together. MacLean had just appointed Councilwomen Gail Reavis and Trish Kelley to serve together on an ad hoc committee. Apparently, Ledesma reacted to MacLean’s risky venture.

Even first-time observers of council meetings sense hostility on the dais. After watching TV coverage a few minutes, an Aegean Hills resident asked his wife, “Why do these people hate each other?” Five people were elected to serve, and they won’t work together. What’s wrong?

Council Members John Paul Ledesma and Gail Reavis worked together from 2000-2002 when they served with members of the old regime. Ledesma and Reavis shared ideals of fiscal responsibility and open government. On Nov. 5, 2002 – election night – Kelley, MacLean, Ledesma and Reavis celebrated together after voters put Kelley and MacLean on the council.

While MacLean in 2002 ran on his own volition, Kelley’s campaign was initiated, fueled and largely financed by friends of Ledesma and Reavis. Ledesma won his reelection bid, and Kelley and MacLean unseated Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow. While MacLean appeared to be the third vote to move the new platform forward, Kelley promised to create harmony following the trouncing of two contentious and annoying councilwomen.

Within weeks, MacLean pulled back from the new team. To Ledesma’s public suggestion of enacting the foursome’s platform (Bill Craycraft was still on the council), MacLean said, “What’s the rush?” Ledesma intended immediately to fire then-City Manager Dan Joseph, who had been blamed for years of financial fiasco and turmoil.

MacLean quickly bonded with Joseph and adamantly defended him. Ledesma and Reavis expected Kelley to vote for Joseph’s dismissal, but she balked, saying, “He’s never done anything to me.” Thus, the community’s frustration set in after winning yet losing. Ledesma and Reavis had knocked themselves out to elect two new people who turned away and never came back.

When MacLean began promoting increased bureaucracy, social programs and corporate welfare, his campaign supporters felt deceived. As MacLean met resistance, his former supporters were impugned and called names in the L.A. Times.

Kelley drifted from her campaign positions back to her P.T.A. roots. Instead of representing the city to the schools, she represents the schools to the city. Her focus is on “character words,” an inane and increasingly costly social program promoted with laughable hypocrisy.

Is the situation beyond repair? By 2003, some of those who had supported Kelley saw she was either unable or unwilling to work with Reavis. Supporters twice attempted to get them to talk out their differences. Reavis agreed to meet both times; Kelley both times refused. Ratcheting up the hostility, Kelley fiercely campaigned against Reavis in 2004 but failed to unseat her.

When viewed in totality, the feuding among council members is unacceptable. With both Kelley and MacLean up for reelection, voters have an opportunity to dump two council members who have brought little to the dais beyond misrepresentation and attitude.